The “Free State” movement is the effort of individual citizens and groups to band together and throw off the yoke of modern government’s tendency to grow ever larger, ever more intrusive and inquisitive, and thus ever more despotic.
Modern day Progressives hate this concept. They paint Free Staters as “ignorant, redneck, anarchist, backward, inbred,” etc. Why? Because Progressive political and social thought is all about large government, centralization, some levels of uniformity and ultimately control. Any effort to impose centralization or uniformity is by definition control and to the American free thinker and US Constitutional adherent, control from government is the antithesis of the American ideal of freedom and especially autonomy from intrusive government.
When any effort is made by citizens to exercise our Constitutionally specified autonomy from intrusive government from the woodwork explodes Progressive thought that demeans our efforts at getting back to the Founding principles. As my overview alluded to, citizens will sit back and meekly accept a certain portion of such things as the Progressive movement argues for.
We do so because of the very nature of American individualism – the tendency to not speak up at the words and actions of others if those words and actions do not directly effect our living our lives. As such we allow a certain entrenchment of these “anti-Founding” concepts, thus they become more acceptable. Soon people espousing concepts such as “Conservatism is hate speech” become somewhat accepted as mainstream belief, or worse, fact.
And now that thought process has become somewhat entrenched thus acceptable as perfectly normal and factual, what damage is done? Look around you.
Isn’t it common to hear people say that Free Staters movements are akin to anarchism and Confederate secession? Indeed! Yet the reality is that is not remotely what State’s Rights are about. When people express a desire to return to Founding thought processes, don’t Progressives leap from the darkness to scream how archaic, antiquated and just pure foolish such discussions are?
Those who so vehemently object do so because it’s all politics, but since they will not or cannot admit they have political motivations, the only other option is to try and destroy the thought process and those that espouse such concepts.
What quandary does the Progressive have to deal with in this discussion? First they must claim they are “returning the nation to Founding principles.” Of course only the Progressive true believer and the ignorantly disinterested are buying that crock of horse dung. Arguing for strict adherence to the Founding principles cannot be construed as they do, at least not factually or logically.
One of the tools of the “bash Conservative heads” toolkit is when we argue we favor strict Founding principles the idiot will chime in “Slavery was a Founding principle. You’re a racist,” or some such protestation.
Slavery was not a Founding principle, but it was a Founding complication. Of course Southerners wanted to count slaves as full persons for the sake of political power. Once again, it was all politics. The 3/5ths Compromise was just that – a compromise. The reality was that even a poor compromise was better than no compromise, so the 3/5ths Compromise becomes part of the Founding document.
When a Free Stater espouses a return to more strict constructionist principle there is no expression of a return to the wrongs of Human slavery. That is so asinine an interpretation that I could not really have seen it coming until I heard it, over and over again.
Trust that Free Staters are about reining in explosive government. Progressivism is all about growing government and using government as the arbitrating and guiding entity with regard to modern society. States Rights advocates are a very real threat to Progressive thought. It flies DIRECTLY in the face of Progressive political and social intentions. As such they will use any tool to defame and destroy the concept.
Politically active Progressives know that if Free Staters and States Rights rebound to the fore, Progressives will have lost the war. Believe it – Progressives do! And when one considers all this Progressive versus Strict Constructionist in this light, suddenly it all makes sense, right? What other explanation can exist?
American society is at war with Progressive thought. As I recently wrote, we’d better view this as war because the Progressives sure do. We cannot possibly win a war we refuse to acknowledge. We cannot pick up the gauntlet thrown at our feet if we refuse to accept this is a very real challenge to America as it was construed.
The Founding principles were focused around small government, individual autonomy and States Rights. So how can a Progressive claim they are returning us to the Founding principles when they spend so much time and energy attacking us for furthering the principles of small government, individual autonomy and States Rights?
The two concepts cannot possibly roll from the same mouth at the same time – it is an absolute physical impossibility for both statements to be true at the same time. Frankly, knowing what I know are 100% documented facts as to the belief system of Progressivism in general, believe me folks, they want something this nation was never construed to be in the final manifestation of how this nation was Founded.
What they argue for – bigger government, less individual autonomy, conformity of outcome for each citizen regardless of their input and the general collectivization of the US – ARE IN NO WAY FOUNDING PRINCIPLES!
Okay Progressives, your turn. Show me one single documented piece of evidence that the Constitution was ever arguing or forwarding principles of collectivization, centralization or the giving over of the individuals their autonomy to the Federal Government. Where in that august document can be found the concept of “social justice” or equality of outcome regardless of effort? Where is the part about everyone sharing everything collectively? SHOW IT TO ME! I DARE YOU!!!!!!
They are using a social justice concept to achieve a political outcome, but it’s not really about justice, now is it? A piece will follow on that point – immediately, if not sooner!
AUTHOR’S NOTE: The first of the links is a more in-depth explanation of this topic.